[Pramāṇa](https://indike.org/pramana/) › [Indian literature](https://indike.org/pramana/in) › [Buddhist Literature](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha) › [Taishō Tripiṭaka (Chinese Buddhist canon)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho) › [般若波羅蜜多心經幽贊](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1710) › 2.36 # 般若波羅蜜多心經幽贊 2.36 般若波羅蜜多心經幽贊 2.36 - **Language:** Classical Chinese ### [2.36](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1710.2.36) 聖教又說，「諸法不自生，亦不從他生，亦不從共生，非不從二生」，雖無所執作用因緣，而有功能緣可得故；此若無者，應無俗諦，俗諦無故，真諦亦無，依誰、由誰而得解脫？或此空者即法性空，若執遍計所執諸色及依他色定異真有，真、俗定別，極成迷亂。今顯二色性即空如、無相無為、非詮智境，應捨二執求趣真空，故攝歸空，雙除妄見，法性之色體即真相，不異即空，此復何惑？聖說二諦各有淺深，彼互相形皆有真俗，有俗俗俗，有俗俗真，有真真真，有真真俗，即俗真俗，真亦俗真，有俗有真，俗無真滅，既非無色而獨有空，亦非色、空定不異、即，故真空與色非異非不異，非即非不即。今遮定異等，唯說不異、即，此不異、即，言亦非不異、即。《辯中邊》說： > The sacred teaching also says: 'Phenomena are not produced from themselves, nor are they produced from another, nor are they produced from both, nor are they produced without both.' Although there are no grasped causal conditions of active functioning, conditions of efficacy can indeed be found. If these did not exist, there would be no conventional truth; and because conventional truth would not exist, ultimate truth would also not exist. Relying upon what, or by means of what, would liberation be attained? Or again, this emptiness is the emptiness of dharmatā. If one grasps the parikalpita forms and the paratantra forms as definitively different from true existence, and conventional and ultimate \[truths\] as definitively separate, this is an utter delusion. Now, showing that the nature of both forms is itself empty suchness, signless, asaṃskṛta, and the cognitive object of wisdom beyond verbal expression, one should abandon the two grasps and seek to progress toward true emptiness. Therefore, subsuming them under emptiness and eliminating both false views, the form of dharmatā is in substance itself the true mark, not different and immediately empty—what confusion is there in this? The noble teaching states that the two truths each have their depths and shallows; in comparison with each other, they each have the conventional and the ultimate. There is the conventional within the conventional; there is the ultimate within the conventional; there is the ultimate within the ultimate; and there is the conventional within the ultimate. What is conventional is the conventional of the ultimate, and the ultimate is also the ultimate of the conventional. There is the conventional and there is the ultimate; when the conventional is absent, the ultimate ceases. Since it is neither that form is absent and emptiness alone exists, nor that form and emptiness are definitively not different or identical, true emptiness and form are therefore neither different nor non-different, neither identical nor non-identical. Now, refuting definitive difference and the like, one only speaks of non-difference and identity; and this speech of non-difference and identity is itself neither non-different nor identical. The Madhyāntavibhāga says: > — English (machine translation) (machine translation) - [Previous: 2.35](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1710.2.35) - [Next: 2.37](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1710.2.37) - [Up: 2](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1710.2) ## Translations (1) - [English (machine translation)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1710~en-mt.2.36) — English, machine translation --- Source: [https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1710.2.36](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1710.2.36) · Pramāṇa